Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 23, 2012 at 12:38 comment added Thomas Pornin There is a problem with the "weapon seller" analogy (all analogies have issues anyway). If I sell a gun to an individual, I am selling it to that guy specifically. If I publish attack details on a public Web site, I am "selling" it to everybody, not just the non-shady-looking guy who happens to have posted the question. I cannot control readership. Using @Iszi's argument, it would be ethical to refuse the "sale" if I have a reasonable suspicion that there is someone, somewhere, with evil intent and an Internet access... which is pretty much always the case !
Aug 23, 2012 at 11:50 comment added Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' I agree with most of this answer, including the part where while we can purely rely on the usual close reasons and the terms of service it might be useful to have a mention in the FAQ as well. I don't think the weapons analogy is a good one, however: we're not selling weapons, we're explaining how they're made (“join me my botnet to attack www.example.com” would make us weapons sellers, and that's clearly way off-topic).
Aug 23, 2012 at 8:00 comment added Polynomial @AviD I think at that point we leave it up to the moral compass of the answerers. If I happen to disagree with the regime in a particular country, then I'm free to provide an answer. If I happen to disagree with OP's moral viewpoint, then I'm free to not answer.
Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 comment added AviD Mod One point, I'm not sure everyone would agree - "malicious and/or illegal and/or unethical". To clarify those gray moral issues in countries run by unjust governments, for example.
Aug 23, 2012 at 7:54 comment added AviD Mod Okay, now this is an answer I agree with. The ambiguousness of "reasonable suspicion" is exactly what I was looking for.
Aug 23, 2012 at 0:07 history edited Iszi CC BY-SA 3.0
added 504 characters in body; added 12 characters in body
Aug 22, 2012 at 23:50 history answered Iszi CC BY-SA 3.0